The universe and the earth were created last thursday.

[RichardT]

Our minds , physical bodies , memories of the past were created last thursday , and all fossil record etc is there to trick us into believing that the earth is any older...

Thoughts ?

I don't know why I posted this , I guess I wanted to show the flaw when creationists try to argue with secular beliefs...

I still believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God , which is why I believe the earth to be young.

Also , I want to direct your attention to this site full of creationists arguments and why you should be a creationist :

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims

including :

Claim CH200:

The universe is relatively young, only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

CreationWiki response:

The question needs be asked by what clock is the universe 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology, shows that it could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old by Earth Clocks, but Billions of years based by a clock out in the universe.

(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

The basis for the 4.5 billion year "age" is a lead isochron of meteorites and Earth rocks. The reason for thinking that this isochron has anything to do with the age of the Earth is the Nebula hypothesis. Since two totally false isochrons from unrelated sets of samples could be used to form a single ischron, there needs to be a theory relating the earth rocks to the meteorites. For uniformitarian geologists the theory would be the Nebula hypothesis. It also requires chemical differentiation to occur at the formation of the Earth and the meteors, otherwise the isochrons would only represent the isotopic makeup of the source material.

A young Earth model offers five possible origins for such isochrons.

• Coincidence. It is possible that the Earth rocks used just happen to match the meteorite isochron. The probability would be enhanced by any physical process that limits the range of variability of isotopic makeup of the types of rocks used.
• The Earth and meteors—or at least the meteors' parent body—were created with a similar isotopic makeup. There is some logic to the idea that God would use similar materials im making even different planets, much like an artist using the same type of paint in different paintings.
• The Earth and meteors were formed by God out of the same source material, without chemical differentiation occurring.
• Meteor originated from the Earth as described by Hydroplate theory. In this case chemical differentiation would not occur.
• The Earth has been sufficiently contaminated with meteoric material that the samples used inherited their isotopic ratios from meteorites.

References:

• Age of Meteorites and the Earth
• Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
• [Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth]

2. The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements:

By what clock?

• We can measure the distances to some types of stars from their apparent brightness. (We know their absolute brightness from nearby stars of the same type whose distances can be measured geometrically.) We find distances more than fifty million light-years away, which means the universe must be at least 50 million years old for the light to reach us. Measurements based on the brightness of supernovae and galaxies, although less accurate, give distances up to billions of light years.
• The Large Magellanic Cloud is 153,000 light years away, as measured by an eclipsing binary star. This method gives a relatively direct measurement from simple observations. A star's absolute brightness is determined from its temperature and diameter, which can be determined from its spectrum and length of eclipse. Distance is then determined from the apparent brightness.

First of all these are measurements of distance not time. A light year is the distance traveled in a year at 186282.45 miles/second, so if any thing were to allow light travel faster, then a translation of distance in to time would have no meaning. One such mechanism, which would not affect the speed of light is quantum tunneling; which could theoretically get light across billions of light years, intently. Unfortunately there is no known way of causing this effect for intergalactic distances that is consistent with observations of interstellar gas, nor is there any direct evidence for it occurring between stars.

Second, by what clock is the light transit time measured? Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology, shows that the universe could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old by Earth Clocks, but Billions of years based by a clock out in the universe.

• The orbits of thirteen of the Koronis family of asteroids were traced back and found to match 5.8 million years ago, suggesting that they formed then from a collision of larger asteroids. (Nesvorny et al. 2002)

1. There is no indication in this orbital data that indicates were these asteroids would be in there orbits at the time of the convergence. As such there is no indication that they where physically near each other that the time.
2. While their orbital eliminates do come close together it is not perfect match
3. The calculations are based on a comparison of the nodal longitude and perihelion argument. They show 3 tight groups of close 3 strays, that increases the possibility of a chance convergence. Whether or not that was considered in their estimate of the odds of this occurring by chance is not mentioned in the paper.
4. All this does not prove that the convergence actually occurred, it at best shows that if the asteroids existed at that time that it probably would have occurred. Clearly if the asteroids are less than 10,000 years old then the convergence would not occurred.
5. Ida is a member of this family and it show evidence of being both older and younger than 5.8 million years. Dating it by craters yields an age of 3 billion years. Scientists say that Ida and its moon, Dactyl, must been created at the same time, but Dactyl, can be at most 100,000 years old. So there are reasons to question the 5.8 million year date.

Reference: Asteroid Siblings Oddly Grouped by Orientation

• There are white dwarf stars found to be twelve to thirteen billion years old, based on their cooling rate.

There are a couple of assumptions to this.

1. That these white dwarfs formed from collapsing stars and stated out at the temperature predicted by that model. This assumption is based on the current model of stellar evolution and not observation. They could be younger if they had stared out cooler.
2. It assumes a constant or predictable cooling rate. Given a total lack of actual experience with matter as dense as it found in white dwarfs it is impossible to tell exactly how they cool.

If either of these assumptions are wrong then the these could be much much younger.

Furthermore, by what clock would they be 12-13 billion years old. Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology, shows that it could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old by Earth Clocks, but Billions of years based by a clock out in the universe.

 

[Hydra009]

since when was science a belief?

 

[Praxiteles]

Our minds , physical bodies , memories of the past were created last thursday , and all fossil record etc is there to trick us into believing that the earth is any older...

Thoughts ?

I don't know why I posted this , I guess I wanted to show the flaw when creationists try to argue with secular beliefs...

I quite agree!

Using scientific argument to back up the Bible is bad science and, as you so rightly point out, bad theology.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The blitheness with which the points in the OP are offered is astounding. It troubles me to have to point out that the measurement errors and/or errors in assumption required to reach 6000 from 13 billion are almost beyond consideration.

 

[Guywiththehead]

I still believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God , which is why I believe the earth to be young.

And you also believe the Earth is flat, Pi is three, and insects have four legs, right?

 

[Silent Bob]

And you also believe the Earth is flat, Pi is three, and insects have four legs, right?

Also hares chew the cud, the stars are all placed in the firmament and the moon radiates light.

 

[rjw]

Our minds , physical bodies , memories of the past were created last thursday , and all fossil record etc is there to trick us into believing that the earth is any older...

Thoughts ?

I don't know why I posted this , I guess I wanted to show the flaw when creationists try to argue with secular beliefs...

I still believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God , which is why I believe the earth to be young.

Also , I want to direct your attention to this site full of creationists arguments and why you should be a creationist :

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims

including :

Claim CH200:

The universe is relatively young, only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

CreationWiki response:

The question needs be asked by what clock is the universe 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology, shows that it could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old by Earth Clocks, but Billions of years based by a clock out in the universe.

[snip]

Hello RichardT,

Our minds , physical bodies , memories of the past were created last thursday , and all fossil record etc is there to trick us into believing that the earth is any older...

Thoughts ?

Here is another one – the universe was created 13 billion years ago and left by God to run according to natural law. Occasionally God intervenes and puts the notion of a young universe into the minds of some humans, just to trick and test them.

I don't know why I posted this , I guess I wanted to show the flaw when creationists try to argue with secular beliefs...

I am not sure what your post is about really. I am happy to accept that scientific facts, theories and hypotheses are “beliefs”. Every thing every human thinks can be considered to be such. However some beliefs are based on extremely good evidence and should be accepted as “true”. Some beliefs are based on little evidence but nevertheless seem like reasonable ideas and so should be considered to be possibly true. Other beliefs are based on no evidence but appear plausible. There is not much one could say about these. Yet other beliefs are based on no evidence and are counter to every other reasonable idea. Such beliefs could be called “false” or “absurd”.

I still believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God , which is why I believe the earth to be young.

And this is where I come unstuck.

a) Is your post an ad for YEC?

b) Is it an ad for Humphreys’ book Starlight and Time?

c) Or is there something reasonably specific you wish to debate, discuss, or argue about?

If a) then I am well aware of YEC arguments, having engaged YECs in written debates for some 10 years now, including YEC scientists at AiG in Australia. Because of this I shall politely but firmly decline your invitation to become a YEC. YEC has nothing going for it.

If b) then Humphreys’ book is generally too mathematical for me to understand. However, I do note that occasionally Humphreys is quite happy to invoke miracle. The moment miracle in invoked, then all bets are off and anything goes. The end result is that Humphreys’ book explains nothing. Unless Humphreys can provide evidence for his miracles then one miracle is as good as another and all his natural explanations can be dismissed likewise with an appeal to miracle. As a result, the age of the universe can be anything anyone wants.

Furthermore, mainstream comments I have read, paint Humphreys’ thesis in a very poor light. Given the experience I have had in dealing with YEC at point a), I am happy to count Humphreys’ thesis as just another piece of poor YEC reasoning.


If c) then put something concrete up for argument or discussion.


For example, consider the following:-

There are white dwarf stars found to be twelve to thirteen billion years old, based on their cooling rate.
There are a couple of assumptions to this.
1. 1. That these white dwarfs formed from collapsing stars and stated out at the temperature predicted by that model. This assumption is based on the current model of stellar evolution and not observation. They could be younger if they had stared out cooler.
2. It assumes a constant or predictable cooling rate. Given a total lack of actual experience with matter as dense as it found in white dwarfs it is impossible to tell exactly how they cool.
If either of these assumptions are wrong then the these could be much much younger.

From your points 1 and 2, are you suggesting that our knowledge of white dwarfs is based on no observations at all? If so, then how do you think our current model of stellar evolution was derived?

Why do you (or YECs) think that the assumptions are wrong? Why do you (or YECs) believe that they are wrong in such a manner that only a younger universe rather than an older universe (or even the existing one) would result upon correction?


Regards, Roland

 

[BVZ]

I have never been able to understand this God created everything WITH a past thing.

If God created the universe YESTERDAY to be 16 billion years old, it is 16 billion years old. The fact that he created it yesterday is irrelevant. If he wants it to be OLD, it is old. He would not have created it old, if he wanted it to be young. IF he wanted it young, why would he have created it to be old?

 

[Industriaan]

I think the post draws people's attention, but even if the hypotesis that the earth is 4.5 bilion yrs old, the YEC believe s just ridiculous, U take gapes in a theory, search somethings that contradict it, and then say, yes but in the bibel, blablabla, 6000 yrs old blablabla, the 4.5billion theory does not completly macht reality.
Wel gues what an eath/ universe from 6000-10000 yrs old has even more holes in it's theory then the other.

What i apreciate is how YEC's always point out what things are mistaken about a theorie, so they can be corrected.
YEC's, the ones who let us know what we still need to correct in modern theories of evolution and the way the earth /universe was created/formed

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Our minds , physical bodies , memories of the past were created last thursday , and all fossil record etc is there to trick us into believing that the earth is any older...

Thoughts ?

I don't know why I posted this , I guess I wanted to show the flaw when creationists try to argue with secular beliefs...

I still believe the bible to be the inerrant word of God , which is why I believe the earth to be young.

There are others such as Glenn Morton who also believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and do not believe the earth to be young. The young earth is an interpretation not an inevitable conclusion.

Also , I want to direct your attention to this site full of creationists arguments and why you should be a creationist :

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims

including :

Claim CH200:

The universe is relatively young, only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

CreationWiki response:

The question needs be asked by what clock is the universe 6,000 to 10,000 years old? Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology, shows that it could be 6,000 to 10,000 years old by Earth Clocks, but Billions of years based by a clock out in the universe.

(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years.

The basis for the 4.5 billion year "age" is a lead isochron of meteorites and Earth rocks. The reason for thinking that this isochron has anything to do with the age of the Earth is the Nebula hypothesis.

Creation Wiki fails to disclose that the solution of the angular momentum problem in the nebula hypothesis lies in transfer of angluar momentum from the sun to the planets by magnetic force and the transfer of angular momentum from the sun right out of the solar system by the solar wind.

Since two totally false isochrons from unrelated sets of samples could be used to form a single ischron, there needs to be a theory relating the earth rocks to the meteorites. For uniformitarian geologists the theory would be the Nebula hypothesis. It also requires chemical differentiation to occur at the formation of the Earth and the meteors, otherwise the isochrons would only represent the isotopic makeup of the source material.

A young Earth model offers five possible origins for such isochrons.

• Coincidence. It is possible that the Earth rocks used just happen to match the meteorite isochron. The probability would be enhanced by any physical process that limits the range of variability of isotopic makeup of the types of rocks used.
• The Earth and meteors—or at least the meteors' parent body—were created with a similar isotopic makeup. There is some logic to the idea that God would use similar materials im making even different planets, much like an artist using the same type of paint in different paintings.
• The Earth and meteors were formed by God out of the same source material, without chemical differentiation occurring.
• Meteor originated from the Earth as described by Hydroplate theory. In this case chemical differentiation would not occur.
• The Earth has been sufficiently contaminated with meteoric material that the samples used inherited their isotopic ratios from meteorites.

References:

• Age of Meteorites and the Earth
• Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
• [Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth]

I suggest you actually read the isochron dating and age of the earth FAQ's rather than trying to learn about them from the distortions at creation wiki. You should also look at Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective to see just how consistent radiometric dates really are.

2. The universe is shown to be old by several independent types of measurements:

By what clock?

By many clocks. Christian geologists realized a long time ago that the earth was far more than 6,000 years old. I suggest you read History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth by former YEC and evangelical Christian Davis Young to learn just how long scientists have known that the earth was ancient.

F.B.

 

[Lucretius]

I wrote a little paper on Humphrey's white-hole cosmology that still might need a bit of tweaking, but overall the paper is factually and mathematically sound, unfortunately, I have to repost it, as it disappeared when I went on vacation for a month:

Stretching Logic and General Relativity: Gravitational Time Dilation and a Young Earth

This attempt at explaining the age of the universe, known to be about 13 billion years, was unknown to me until recently. Instead of the usual claims that God created light in-transit, with the appearance of age, or even that the speed of light (referred to hereafter simply as c, was faster beforehand, this argument tries to use General Relativity and a theoretical concept called a white hole in an attempt to use gravitational time dilation as an explanation for why the universe appears billions of years old. The white-hole model, originally proposed by Creationist Russell Humphreys, is clever, but nonetheless based on some very unreasonable assumptions — for instance, that the Earth is the center of the universe and that it is sitting in a very warped region of spacetime.

What I will attempt to demonstrate in this article is not only that Humphrey’s assumptions are unreasonable, but that his conclusions are wrong as well, and stem from a misunderstanding of physics.

What is gravitational time dilation?

The concept of gravitational time dilation is one that took into account gravity, but was otherwise simply an extension of Special Relativity time dilation. So, the question is: what is time dilation? The idea that space and time are not absolute in and of themselves is a basic principle of Relativity. These both depended on the observer. Take for example, the problem of the surviving muon. Observations of these from ground observatories taking into account the muon’s half-life found that a tiny fraction of the muons should actually reach the ground, but instead about one-eighth of them did. That is, the muon should have gone through more half-lives (about 23), reducing the chance of it surviving, than it actually did. The reason for this is time dilation. The muon particle travels at a speed of about .99c and so special relativistic effects must be taken into account. Time for some math:

We need to find something called the time dilation factor, which is signified by the Greek gamma. The equation for it looks like this (numbers are added.) .99 is the speed of the muon and 1 is the speed of light (in terms of c.) This gives a gamma of 7.08. What does this mean? The muon looks like it lives seven times longer than it really does. The reason for this is because the muon does not really have to travel 30,000 meters from the upper atmosphere to the Earth in its own point of view. In fact, it only has to travel about 4000 meters (the equation for the contraction being rest length divided by gamma.) If one then does a simple distance/speed to find time, and then divides by the half-life of a muon, they find that the number of times the muon actually experiences a half-life is significantly less than the previous calculation.

Gravitational time dilation, as mentioned previously, simply applies the notion of time dilation to gravitational fields. An obvious example of where this plays a part is in a black hole. As an observer sees an object get closer and closer to that gravitational field, the time for that object to reach the event horizon gets asymptotically larger until the object in question freezes in place (to the observer from the outside) and then dims to blackness due to the lengthening wavelength of the light reaching the observer.

There are methods of calculating the time dilation involved with black holes, which is dependent on the circumference of their event horizon as well as the circumference of the orbiting observer. This is quantitatively expressed by

Let’s do an example problem, for which the time dilation can be reversed in the situation of a white hole (mathematically this works, because the white hole is the hypothetical opposite of a black hole, thus, while objects in a black hole take longer and longer to fall in to an outside observer, objects leaving a white hole take longer and longer to escape to an inside observer.)






In this equation, the numerator is the time observed by people outside of the black hole. The fraction you see is the circumference of the event horizon divided by the circumference of the orbit of the observer. If one does the calculation, one finds that a day to an orbiting observer is really 14,142 days for someone outside of the system! This means each day that goes by is 38 years for anyone outside of the system. A week inside this orbit and everyone you knew would have been long dead. However, if these numbers were to be given to a black hole, would it provide sufficient time for the Earth to be mistakenly dated billions of years old when it was only 6,000? The answer, at this orbit at least, is yes. Because 1 day is 38 years, we find that in 6000 years of “true time”, over 30 billion years have passed. Problems with this will be discussed in the next section.


Big Problems with White Holes

How does this apply to white holes and Humphrey’s Creation model? As mentioned above, Humphrey believes that matter passing out of the white hole will have a time dilation opposite that of a black hole. That is, any object being spewed out would undergo time dilation, and so an observer inside the white hole would see things in an accelerated manner. There are problems with this idea. First of all, white holes cannot exist. They violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics due to the fact that they spew out matter. This is positive work in a closed system. That is, the universe would have decreasing entropy, something that violates the Second Law which states that entropy in a closed system cannot decrease. Another problem is that white holes only stem from relativistic equations. There is no evidence that they exist in the physical universe. According to the Second Law, they cannot exist as they are described now.

However, for the sake of Humphrey’s argument let’s assume for a moment that a white hole does exist. How would it work? Any object that spews matter outwards would have to have positive gravitational energy. This is because gravitational energy is normally negative (objects attract other objects, and extremely massive objects will collapse into smaller objects due to gravity, e.g. black holes). For a white hole to be repulsive then, it would need a positive gravitational energy, and, if one takes into account the fact that massive bodies create negative gravitational fields, it becomes implied that bodies with negative mass create positive gravitational fields. Particles with negative mass have not been observed, and so this only hurts the notion of a white hole. Another problem arises when one tries to reconcile Humphrey’s claim that we are at the center of where that white hole was (so that the time dilation works) and the fact that material spewed out of a white hole would all accumulate somewhere around the white hole, eventually aggregating into a mass so large that it would collapse and form a black hole. This implies that the Earth, in Humphrey’s model, should not exist, because it is at the center of a black hole.

Why would we observe accelerated aging?

The question comes to mind — why would the Earth view the accelerated aging? We would have to somehow have the energy to sit right in the middle of the white hole, while ALL other matter somehow was forced out. This is a physical impossibility. The matter that formed the Earth is the same as every other planet, galaxy, and star in our universe. How come we are exempt from being spewed out of the white hole while others are not? What evidence does Humphrey give to defend his position that the Earth is in some sort of gravitational “spacetime dip” and that everything else is above us? He writes “As Isaiah 55:9 says: “For the heavens are higher than the Earth…”(3) Other than the mention of a Biblical passage, he provides no mechanism for how the Earth could have avoided the push from the positive gravitational gravity out of the white hole. We must assume we went along with the rest of the matter out of the white hole which means are our clocks ran no different than any other clocks. Time dilation does not allow for a 6,000 year old Earth. Going back up to our equation for the black hole time dilation, we assumed the Earth could actually orbit within .0001km of a black holes event horizon for 6,000 years. This is also impossible. Let’s forget about being fried by the incredible temperature for a moment and calculate the tidal forces exerted by a black hole on the Earth were we to orbit as close as we calculated for.




The above equation was used to find tidal forces, where I assumed both R and r (R being distance to object, and r being distance from center of axis) were the same.

How much tidal force is exerted on our Earth? 8.6x10^51 N worth. The Earth could not hold up to this for any length of time, let alone 6,000 years.

Of course, in Bruce Malone’s article (4) he says that the Earth was actually the “last thing to come out of the white hole”. This also is a physical impossibility (I assume Malone implies the Earth came out in one piece.) Any object under the strength of such an immense gravitational field, be it positive or negative, would still undergo tremendous tidal forces, causing anything larger than the tiniest of particles to be ripped to shreds. Only when out of the white hole could anything hope to accumulate.

 

[Industriaan]

nice post, but i think only few will understand what u wrote down